Welcome to HVAC-Talk.com, a non-DIY site and the ultimate Source for HVAC Information & Knowledge Sharing for the industry professional! Here you can join over 150,000 HVAC Professionals & enthusiasts from around the world discussing all things related to HVAC/R. You are currently viewing as a NON-REGISTERED guest which gives you limited access to view discussions

To gain full access to our forums you must register; for a free account. As a registered Guest you will be able to:

Participate in over 40 different forums and search/browse from nearly 3 million posts.

A conclusion is possible freinds...

At this point it may be good to asses the progress so far. Among other things, it seems that John 1:1 has come up a lot.
Is the Word 'God', or 'a god'? the grammatical points from Sysint seem to indicate that there is at least the possibility that 'a god' is a POSSIBLE translation. It also allows for the fact that a concientious translator would have reason not to add a letter 'a' since it was not present in the original text, but this doesn't mean it necessarily wasn't meant to be there in english translation, it just may be an oversight to not include it.
RESULTS: Inconclusive... You can't settle the identity of God on one verse. If it is so important, then there should be other verses that apply and can help us get to the bottom of things.
SO we can continue to produce witnesses.

It appears that we have Christian arguing with Christian over meanings of words and various translations. While sincere study and discussion of God's word is healthy, it almost seems like some of you guys are fighting over these things instead of searching for their meanings. Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

It appears that we have Christian arguing with Christian over meanings of words and various translations. While sincere study and discussion of God's word is healthy, it almost seems like some of you guys are fighting over these things instead of searching for their meanings. Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

I now return you to an otherwise excellent discussion.

Thanks K_Fridge!!

THat was the motive behind the 'be nice' post I put up on the last page. If the truth has nothing to do with our personal opinion, but rather on what God tells us, there is no reason to dodge, get offended, or be nasty. I don't know if you went far enough back to se TB's post where he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB
The Christian perspective should be that scripture is right, and seek to line up their own opinion with it. With that perspective, there is no offense in being "wrong", merely gratitude at the opportunity to become "right", and therefore, no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong.

THat was the motive behind the 'be nice' post I put up on the last page. If the truth has nothing to do with our personal opinion, but rather on what God tells us, there is no reason to dodge, get offended, or be nasty. I don't know if you went far enough back to se TB's post where he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TB
The Christian perspective should be that scripture is right, and seek to line up their own opinion with it. With that perspective, there is no offense in being "wrong", merely gratitude at the opportunity to become "right", and therefore, no desire to avoid being accused of being wrong.

BTW did you play for the Bears in the late 80's???

I wasn't singling out anyone in particular, I'm just one that believes that if we Christians have disagreements we should sit down behind closed doors to work them out and then be in that Honda (one accord ) when we come back out.

To continue to sum up.....

Originally Posted by TB

Quote: Originally Posted by sysint
Col 1:15 rightly states Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the image of God.
True again, but it does not imply He is a second god. Verse 16 says Jesus created all things, Isa 45:18 says Jehovah did the creating. If both verses are true, then both creators are the same God. Verse 18 clarifies vs. 15, saying that Jesus was the firstborn, from the dead Jn. 1:3 says that nothing was made that has been made without Jesus doing it, therefore Jesus couldn't have been made himself, or it would not be true that all things that were made, were made by Him

(Colossians 1:15-20) 15*He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16*because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17*Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18*and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19*because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20*and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.

So Is it that Jesus was created, and that is what is meant by 'firstborn of creation'? How can it be that jesus was created if Jesus created all things in the next verse? (My translation says he created all OTHER things btw) Is it really saying that firstborn as in of creation (thus created) or of those resurrected, or both? Is 'by means of him' (vs16) Meant to show us God used him as an assistant perhaps to do all this? THat would seem to allow for the bible to say in one place 'jesus was created' and in another 'jesus created all things'. God made Jesus first and then WOrked with Jesus, allowing Jesus to take Part in the Creative Process. It would explain why We read this:
(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: ďLet us make man..." The 'us' Referring to Jesus, who took Direction from god and then did the job.

Besides, the time may come when you post and all you get is the reply 'It's just another boot-bomb, ignore it fellas, he does this from time to time.'

Let me tell you of my friend Bootlen. In the three years I have spent on this board, he has been one of the very few, if not the only, frequent poster to the Christian discussions that also happens to BE a Christian and has yet to lose his temper with me.

Even when I want him too.

Now, I can be a downright pain in the ass, a "known ass" as the saying goes here on the forums. I respect Bootlen a lot. He has never ever declared me hopeless when I have repeatedly assured him that I am.

Bootlen does seem a tad grouchy right now, but he also recently suffered a very close and important loss. I have never suffered a similar loss as yet so I can only imagine what it's like and what he is going through right now. And what I am imagining is not very good.

That said, you should probably also know that Boot has openly admitted that he has a closed mind. He can afford to be that way, you see, because he's right.

My anger over a certain recent event has now subsided, and I have returned for many reasons... among them to speak with you Numba. You seem a very refreshing voice "on the other side" as it were. But don't cast Bootlen down as the only stubborn believer on this board.

Anyway, I was struck by your earlier comment about the Bible being incapable of contradicting itself. Maybe... maybe not. In my mind the bible is rife with illogic and conundrum. Whether or not that means that the bible conflicts with itself will be widely open to interpretation.

I am in my busy season at work and may not post as much as normal until February or so. I'll try to write detailed replies when I can which may not be always.

Sometimes non-believers use arguments like this as fodder to support their anti-God positions so I think we should be careful to remember that we're on the same team.

Perceptive and somewhat accurate I would say. However, don't forget that *I* believe that any idea or ideal that wishes to call itself "Universal Truth" should be a little more, ah, universal. And easy to understand. The depth of the discussions here are indeed fascinating, but not everyone on the planet has the sort of intelligence or even the downright desire it takes to consider things in this fashion. In short, to me a true God would play to a wider audience. Once concepts have to be explained by someone then they become tainted right there and then.

As Betrum Russell once said "Man would rather die than think. In fact, he does so."

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell

So Is it that Jesus was created, and that is what is meant by 'firstborn of creation'? How can it be that jesus was created if Jesus created all things in the next verse? (My translation says he created all OTHER things btw) Is it really saying that firstborn as in of creation (thus created) or of those resurrected, or both? Is 'by means of him' (vs16) Meant to show us God used him as an assistant perhaps to do all this? THat would seem to allow for the bible to say in one place 'jesus was created' and in another 'jesus created all things'. God made Jesus first and then WOrked with Jesus, allowing Jesus to take Part in the Creative Process. It would explain why We read this:
(Genesis 1:26) And God went on to say: ďLet us make man..." The 'us' Referring to Jesus, who took Direction from god and then did the job.

SEEMS Reasonable at least. What do you think TB?

if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being. From Gen. 1:26 we can derive the understanding that God was talking to someone other than himself, but who and how many we don't know. Now since the NWT has been shown to be unreliable as a source of truth elseware, then it would be unwise to rely on it completely as a credible source of truth now.

How about Isa 45 :18. If you consider this passage in Col. with that one in Isa. what do you conclude?

TB
Everyone knows something I don't.

2 Chronicles 7:14
14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

if Jesus was created we are in trouble. Only an eternal being can pay an eternal debt of sin against an eternal God, in a finite time. If Jesus was created, then he had a beginning, and therefore is not eternal. His death would not pay the debt caused by our sin against an eternal being.

Jesus WAS created, for when he had not yet become Jesus he was simply God. If Jesus had not come then no one would know of him; there would only be God. So Jesus was very much a creation of God. Even if you believe that Jesus was also God Himself.

"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ― Bertrand Russell